Other Cricket
-
@donsteppa the fuck!! that is huuuuge! When those guys click watch out!
-
-
Right thread?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/60109305 -
@bones It's an odd one isn't it? He's personally had a bloody good year but as a captain he's won pretty much fuck all.
-
@catogrande As a batter he's had a phenomenal year. Really had to recieve the Award. No one else gets within cooee
-
He's back, there is hope for all us old buggers yet!
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/sport/cricket/ex-black-cap-returns-to-cricket-field-after-15-year-absence/ar-AAU2DiU?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531 -
@booboo said in Other Cricket:
Been channel surfing through some old Aus v India on Foxtel from 1991/92.
I recall why we regarded the Aussie umpires as blatant cheats. It wasn't even close.
Thank goodness for:
- Neutral umpires
- DRS
Ha! Channel surfing and find 99/00 Aus v Pakistan.
First ball of the highlights package, Wasim to Slater ... umpire Parker ... tell me those pre-DRS Aussie umpires weren't blatant cheats.
-
@booboo said in Other Cricket:
@booboo said in Other Cricket:
Been channel surfing through some old Aus v India on Foxtel from 1991/92.
I recall why we regarded the Aussie umpires as blatant cheats. It wasn't even close.
Thank goodness for:
- Neutral umpires
- DRS
Ha! Channel surfing and find 99/00 Aus v Pakistan.
First ball of the highlights package, Wasim to Slater ... umpire Parker ... tell me those pre-DRS Aussie umpires weren't blatant cheats.
This appears to be that Hobart game that Gilly and Langer chased down. I'm sure you Ockers are proud...
-
And snicko shows Langer hit the cover off one ... but pre DRS
-
-
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@nta said in Other Cricket:
Have a sook 🙄
non-neutral umpires were a disgrace everywhere.
Rugby referees same boat
-
@nta said in Other Cricket:
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@nta said in Other Cricket:
Have a sook 🙄
non-neutral umpires were a disgrace everywhere.
Rugby referees same boat
Bob Deans scored in 1905.
-
@nzzp In the era of home umpires NZ was the only country where visiting teams got more of the rub of the green that the home team. Only place where the visitors had fewer LBW's than the home team. I'd like to think this was because of the strict impartiality of our umpires but we all know that they were (collectively0 as one eyed as anyone else. Rather it is a further demonstration of just how poor our batsmen were. Even home town decisions couldn't help them.
DRS has improved the game. Lead to a marked decline in umpire bullying and removed most of the howlers. But it is far from perfect. Some of the ball tracking and height decisions are baffling.
-
@dogmeat said in Other Cricket:
DRS has improved the game. Lead to a marked decline in umpire bullying and removed most of the howlers. But it is far from perfect. Some of the ball tracking and height decisions are baffling.
which howlers are left? I mean, it's very rare that marginal decisions get overturned. I'm struggling to think of a real howler that has occurred (see Bucknor not giving Symonds out at the SCG).
-
@booboo said in Other Cricket:
@booboo said in Other Cricket:
Been channel surfing through some old Aus v India on Foxtel from 1991/92.
I recall why we regarded the Aussie umpires as blatant cheats. It wasn't even close.
Thank goodness for:
- Neutral umpires
- DRS
Ha! Channel surfing and find 99/00 Aus v Pakistan.
First ball of the highlights package, Wasim to Slater ... umpire Parker ... tell me those pre-DRS Aussie umpires weren't blatant cheats.
Parker was the worst of them i reckon
-
@nzzp Sorry I worded that ambiguously. I think it has eliminated the howlers which is what it is designed to do. It's the less obvious where I think it can be wrong. I just don't think the ball tracking technology is all that. I can't immediately think of an example but there are definitely times when I think WTF. There are simply too many variables but as long as it removes the howlers I think it has vastly improved the game. The rest should even themselves out
-
@dogmeat yep, just nodded through your post.
The ball tracking is a damn good estimate of where the ball is likely to go. That's enough to take out the howler. As you say, it evens out - and that is really important.
What I was contemplating is the umpires call - you have the same leeway if you get hit in front going back, as if you get a massive stride in down the wicket. The uncertainty at the stumps would be fundamentally different, as well as the amount of data available.
That said, we're arguing around the fringes. Edges get picked up wtih hotspot and RTS; faint gloves are hard to identify - but arguably shouldn't be out anyway. Ball tracking takes out the howlers from the LBW, particularly where it's bat-pad. I wonder if there should be some law updates, though, clarifying the presumption of 'not out' for simultaneous contact in LBW.
Anyway, all in all good for the game, takes team pressure off umpires, and encourages them to give good decisions. The standard is generally remarkably high.
-
@dogmeat said in Other Cricket:
@nzzp Sorry I worded that ambiguously. I think it has eliminated the howlers which is what it is designed to do. It's the less obvious where I think it can be wrong. I just don't think the ball tracking technology is all that. I can't immediately think of an example but there are definitely times when I think WTF. There are simply too many variables but as long as it removes the howlers I think it has vastly improved the game. The rest should even themselves out
Howlers are the line of pitch and ball hitting/not hitting the bat.
Umps are pretty good at judging whether the ball is hitting the stumps.
They have at least got the system working well (unlike rugby)
If the ump was able to provide reasons for out/not out then the video can check those maybe?
